Carlos,

I would normally not get involved in this kind of discussion... but I guess either Me or you didn´t fully understand or follow this thread.

I don´t think anyone here is arguing that Video cannot achieve what Film can...

I think the whole point to this thread was to comment or deffend what VIdeo IS capable of doing by itself... and stand up against those arrogant (and uninformed) comments made by that teacher or speaker or whatever it was the he did.

And Video is capable of doing a lot of great things... one for starters.. is letting a whole lot of people make movies and tell stories, that otherwise would not have been made. Of course there are a lot of horrible things done in video.. (also there are a lot of horrible thing made in Film).. but that the creators fault not the medium..

Going back to the Painting analogy... No one is trying to make Oil Paintings with Crayons... Here we are trying to make great drawings with crayons... Most of us won´t ever see a dime out of it.. and maybe a few of us would get our story-message through... But just the fact that "WE" exist makes it enough victory for VIdeo... independently of whatever the future brings...

And whatever the "industry" says it´s the medium of choice.. and whatever anyone says about Film quality, I rather see one hundred "28 days later" made on "cheap" video with "ugly" pixels than most of the stuff that comes out of the "expensive" Film factories of Hollywood... or some of the "Artistic" masterpieces of European-asian-whatever that put me to sleep very quick...

Once again... "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"... and the beholder can think different than what he/she is tought to think by culture-media-school-marketing-etc...

I just think that both media can live together, and I´m sure that Film has much more than 10 years of "movie domination".. but still, Film industry is too big, and FIlm artists are very elitist.. and they are scared of what might become to them if Anyone could make great movies...

I guess you´re right in most of what you say... I just think it´s in the wrong discussion...

But hey that´s me... and read my signature...

Re: Real world comparison
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Carlos E. Martinez :

Let's state a point first: do you REALLY think that video, the highest gear available now, state of the art, gets even close to what film has to offer?

<snip>

Considering film as a "better" medium is not being snob, is just acknowledging how things are.

Carlos -->>>

Well, while I see your point, I don't think I completely agree with it. Right now a lot of studios are using 4k digital interpositives. That's 12-bit 4096x3112 resolution that they're scanning 35mm negatives at and then editing on non-linear editing machines and using a laser-printer to print their results to film. Almost nobody can tell the difference between an optically printed 35mm image and a digitally printed 4k 35mm image and working entirely in the digital realm allows a range of color timing and correction tools to be available to the filmmaker that wouldn't be there if film was the medium throughout post.

I had a chance to use a Canon EOS-1Ds last summer. It shoots RAW images at 12-bit 4064 x 2704, which is very close to the 4K systems. My opinion was that it was not only a superior format to 35mm, but it could give medium format a run for its money. You look at a current 720p or 1080i HD image and you're seeing essentially a 1 megapixel image. Mini-DV is about a third of a megapixel. Almost nobody would buy a digital still camera that shot at those resolutions and certainly nobody would try to compare them favorably to film. However, there are a number of imaging sensors that have been announced for motion picture use that will operate at the kind of resolutions that the Canon shoots. When the first of those begin to arrive next year I imagine it will pretty much be the writing on the wall for film. Sure, it will take a while for the studios to adopt the new technology, but shooting 35mm will essentially be an anachronism at that point.

I'm sure there will continue to be elitist snobbery about the intangible "something" that film offers and endless debates about which kind of horse hooves made the best gelatin base or what kind of anti-halation backing was least prone to shadowing. At the end of the evening the group can all climb in their covered wagons and go see a digitally projected 4k feature film at the local theater. ;-)

-Rob

Sorry, but you're wrong. Most films that use a DI are scanned at 2K, not 4K. It's expensive enough and slow enough to get a 2K DI. 4K is almost prohibitive at this point unless you have lots of time and a big budget.

Still, DIs are still the exception and not the rule. Even then, many complain about the poor quality of going with a DI despite the flexibility it allows in some areas. Quentin Tarantino and his DP, Bob Richardson, hated the idea of using one on "Kill Bill" but decided they had to so it would be easier to maintain their unusual look across genres.

You can beat a digital system using film throughout if you don't have a lot of opticals and effects. Film needs to be degraded for CGI effects. Opticals degrade with each pass. But any film made with contact printing will run rings around digital. With a lot of effects, digital can only come close to film.

Depending on the study, 35mm motion picture film is from 12M to 25M pixels. But we haven't even begun to talk about color saturation, contrast, etc. Nor has anyone mentioned the possibility of the studios going 70mm, MaxVision, or other much cheaper methods.

None of the 10 or so cinematographers I know that work for the studios have said they would even consider using digital now. When digital can accomplish what film can do, then OK, but they haven't seen it yet.

Remember, digital integrated circuits, including CCDs, are still made using film lithography.

Frediroc summed it up nicely, it is not about whether video can
match film or which one is better. It is about video can do some
amazing things within the limits of that format.

Thanks for all the contributions but lets try to stay on topic now,.
thank you!

I saw a few digital, HD, Beta and low budget 16mm films at the Vancouver International Film Festival the past three weeks and I have to say that only one thing counts.

THE STORY.

Well, and the content.

People are willing to forgive a lot if the story is at all interesting and compelling.

After all, a good many documentaries are video and no one complains about it not looking filmy. That's because the content, the story is what is interesting them.

The only digital picture I walked out on had a really stupid, wacko story. The others, rough or poorly lit or shot on the cheap, had enough humour, action, story or theme to keep me going.

Hi, Federico!

First of all I'm sorry to start my being part of this great Forum "stating" things in such a way as I did.

Maybe I didn't fully understand this thread. But if you say "I don´t think anyone here is arguing that Video cannot achieve what Film can...", then this maybe the right dicusssion. If someone is arguing that video right now can achieve what film can, then that someone is wrong. My whole point was to show why video is several generations behind film on what they can achieve. But that doesn't mean all that much if you don't consider other factors.

And I certainly defend what video can do better and that it should be used as extensively as possible. One thing low budget productions shot in video have is that they are more democratic than film ever got to be (or probably will). I foresee a future of hundredths of thousands shooting videos which I think will be great for the audiovisual culture. So we also agree on that.

The teacher you mention was certainly a creep and is quite likely a very short minded person. We just have to beware of such persons when they can harm us, when they have power.

I certainly agree that film and video can live together and help each other. On the times when many people were against video as a film tool, I always stated that it was different, that it could be used for different things.

For instance, the first time I saw theatrical documentaries shot in video and kinoscoped to film, I realized what we would have to sacrifice and what we would win. Then I knew film was dead for documentaries, particularly for interviews.

But for features I'm a bit more demanding. The infinite subtones you get with film, and can't get with video, are a pleasure to dive in when you have a good projection at the theatre.

As I consider myself an independent filmmaker, of course I always look (and looked) for ways to be able to film things cheaply. Whether in film or video it's not really that important if you get it done. That should be the main task.


Carlos

<<<-- Originally posted by Carlos E. Martinez : Hi, Federico!
...My whole point was to show why video is several generations behind film on what they can achieve. But that doesn't mean all that much if you don't consider other factors....
-->>>

I agree with you in most of your statement... I just think that nobody here said that Video can do the Same thing as Film.. That´s not the argument here... So that´s why I think your post didn´t quite fit in here.... but maybe it´s an English thing that I just don´t fully get...

Rob Lohman backed me up, so maybe I do understand... (although he couldn´t spell my name right :-))

<<<--
As I consider myself an independent filmmaker, of course I always look (and looked) for ways to be able to film things cheaply. Whether in film or video it's not really that important if you get it done. That should be the main task.
-->>>

I couldn´t agree more with you here... And I think that´s the point we are deffending here.. that Video can let us "get it done"... and Done Right..

<<<---Hi, Federico!
First of all I'm sorry to start my being part of this great Forum "stating" things in such a way as I did.
--->>>

As far as I´m concerned nothing to be sorry about.... I didn´t see any rudeness or anything negative about it.. It´s your thoughts... and that´s what these forums are for.. right?

And I hope it´s not too late.. But Welcome to the forums... :-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : Sorry, but you're wrong. Most films that use a DI are scanned at 2K, not 4K. It's expensive enough and slow enough to get a 2K DI. 4K is almost prohibitive at this point unless you have lots of time and a big budget.
-->>>

I didn't say there were no other formats being used. 2K DIs are looked at as a compromise the same way 2K cinematic projection is looked at as a compromise by DCI, who are reluctantly agreeing to a scalable 2K/4K distribution path. 2K DIs aren't detailed enough to surpass the quality 35mm, though. It's no wonder so many people who've had the option of using them have passed.

A 4K image is almost 13 megapixels, though. I've yet to meet anyone who used imaging sensors in that range who didn't prefer working with them over working with film. Digital still photography has been considerably ahead of digital video as the format has emerged. Look around right now at working still photographers and look what most of them are using. I seldom ever see any professionals working with film anymore. It will eventually be the same in cinema.

My argument isn't that what's currently being done in Hollywood isn't mostly film-based. My argument is that the technology is right on the brink of making film vs. video a non-issue. There are millions of theaters in the world with film projectors and I'm sure the distribution path for filmmakers will favor film for some time to come. Likewise, I'm sure the high-end digital systems that are about to become available will be prohibitively expensive for some time to come. Even then, there will be some people who choose film, just as there are some portrait and studio photographers who wouldn't give up their view cameras for a large digital back anytime soon.

My point was that very soon it isn't really going to matter if you decide to realize your vision using film or video. Really soon they'll both offer comparable visual quality and within a few years digital video will offer that quality at a fraction of the production cost. Maybe then the elitists who feel that video isn't art will find something else to occupy them.

It is correct that many films scan work for special effects shots in at 2K resolution, and render the computer imagery out at that same resolution. It results in very soft visuals onscreen, like most of The Perfect Storm, which the SFX were all done at 2K. The big waves look incredibly fake as a result. Movies like Stuart Little were done 100% at 4K resolution, and as a result they look much better.

Sorry really long post...
 

This thread is really great. Excellent info and very interesting opinions have been expressed. I would like to add mine. I think the road that leads to the death of film is a road we have already started to walk. I know film *is* better in many ways. But I also believe we are very close to getting there with video, as it's problems are close to being fixed. Consider just the following two problems: resolution and lattitude. Right now, these two parameters are really what set's the two technologies appart.

In regard to resolution, the market has already seen 8Mpx CCD still cameras. These cameras sometimes do some basic form of video, usually MPEG based and not high quality... but they are photo cameras, not video cameras. I am convinced that, under the current state of technology, a 4K video cameras is possible, you just need to put more processing power into the camera so all those pixels can be pumped out in real time. Of course it will be expensive. Of course it will not be small. Of course it might not be very simple to operate. But there is absolutely no way it will be more expensive, bigger and harder to operate than a 35mm film camera. Even if the camera itself is more expensive (surely good glass will be *as* expensive), processing power and compression will make media much much less expensive. Even if the resolution is really not as high physically as that of 35mm film, it won't matter. Sure, it matters to me, it matters to most of you, in those rare ocassions where we are in a cinema, close enough to the projection screen to tell the difference if we are looking for them. But most viewers will not notice the difference.

As for lattitude, I think the problem might be easily fixed using multiple CCD arrays, but not the way they are used now in normal video cameras... not one for each primary color. The best still cameras use a single CCD. So adding a second or third CCD with different ND filters can serve the purpose of capturing a wider dynamic range in the AD stage.

I firmly believe that the reason why better technology is not available does not respond to real technical problems. It's just Moore's law being an integral part of the tech manufacterer's business model. So they want to be able to sell us a product now, a better product in two years and an even better one four years from now. DV is governed by this because it was developed for a mass market, not to replace film... and that is why the DV vs Film debate is somewhat senseless, although obviously very interesting. The death of film will not be DV, it will not be HDV, but something between CineAlta and UHDV with a pixlet-like high bit depth codec. I am not saying this is what I want or that this is a good thing. I am just convinced that it will happen. When? Well... ehhhh... basically when Sony wants. Or when somebody else, with less to cannibalize, hits home. JVC is sure trying hard with HDV, but it is somewhat cripped technology. The others will be playing catchup with JVC in the nexts months, but somebody needs to try just a little harder, with a new format, probably disc-based or solid state. Canon perhaps? Great glass at least...

Re: Sorry really long post...
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : This thread is really great.

In regard to resolution, the market has already seen 8Mpx CCD still cameras. -->>>

http://www.dalsa.com/

That's an 8 megapixel motion picture camera with a 35mm-sized sensor and a PL lens mount. There's more stuff like this coming soon, too.

-Rob

> That's an 8 megapixel motion picture camera with a 35mm-sized
> sensor and a PL lens mount. There's more stuff like this coming soon

Ohh yes. Read about Dalsa... seems like the resolution is very high... perhaps even too high for practical use right now. I mean, assuming that the masses can't tell 8Mpx from 4Mpx... I would be happy with the latter and a big compression ratio a-la-pixlet so as to not lug around and process terabytes and terabytes. UHDV seems like a nightmare to manage... not exactly what I have in mind as the digital film dream...

I imagine something which uses a drastically modern codec with res big enough to compete with film for the average eye, where the resulting stream can be managed on a G5 or big P4 machine with off the shelf storage.

<<<-- Originally posted by Ignacio Rodriguez : >

Ohh yes. Read about Dalsa... seems like the resolution is very high... perhaps even too high for practical use right now. I mean, assuming that the masses can't tell 8Mpx from 4Mpx... I would be happy with the latter and a big compression ratio a-la-pixlet so as to not lug around and process terabytes and terabytes. UHDV seems like a nightmare to manage... not exactly what I have in mind as the digital film dream...

I imagine something which uses a drastically modern codec with res big enough to compete with film for the average eye, where the resulting stream can be managed on a G5 or big P4 machine with off the shelf storage. -->>>

Yeah, the data storage issue is what I think is slowing everything down at this point. Quite a few companies have sensors capable of spitting out high-resolution images fast enough, but very few companies have solved the problem of what to do with that data. The Dalsa page says their system takes about one and a half terrabytes of storage per hour of run time. Disc I/O requirements are around 1 Gb/sec. That's RAID-only bandwidth.

Of course, we're talking about technology comparable to shooting with 35mm film. There aren't a lot of people who can do 35mm post in their garages, either. Five or six years from now, though, who knows? Cameras operating at these resolutions may be able to record on internal media that can manage hundreds of terrabytes of data at those I/O speeds.

> Of course, we're talking about technology comparable to
> shooting with 35mm film

Hmmm. I don't think it needs be *that* good. The 35mm negative will have a much higher res than a 4 Mpx digital image, but the 4 Mpx digital image will be good enough for the masses... that's my whole point.

I mean, when I saw the Star Wars sequel shot I think in CineAlta... I really enjoyed the imagery, I don't see how it could have been better to use film. I wasn't close to the screen, I wasn't looking for jaggies, I just enjoyed it (even though the story was sort of boring), the sound was great, the image was great, what else can we want? Simple: a 35mm CCD, better lattitude, inexpensive media...

Perhaps in the end it's all going to be about who has the best quality CCD and the best quality glass, so there will be on one end the 'pro' stuff being used by next year's George Lucas and on the other end the 'indie' stuff, which is what you and me will use. 'pro' being perhaps Zeiss lenses and a Dalsa head and 'indie' being a Canon Xl1-like thing with a 35mm Sony CCD.

There's another aspect of the (I believe eventual) digital takeover of theatrical capture and exhibition that no one seems to talk much about, and it may be one reason that Hollywood is dragging it's feet just a bit on embracing digital.

Digital is too good. Yes, I'm talking about even current technology. Even the Panasonic Varicam, at only 1280x720, and even the current DLP projectors that are installed in maybe 30 locations nationwide. They are too good.

The first time I saw a movie projected digitally was JVC's DLP technology demonstration at NAB in 1999. They showed a D-9 copy of Shakespeare in Love on an ad-hoc theater in a ballroom at the Riviera Hotel. It was a really good job for a temp theatre, with a big screen, stadium seating (albeit with the hard ballroom rental chairs), and a killer surround sound setup.

As my wife and I sat down to watch the feature, the first thing that struck us both is how much better the image looked than when we saw it in the theater. Once you took away the gate weave, printing inconsistency, sprocket jitter, and the inevitable bad focus and dim projection bulb of your local Cineplex, the effect was astounding.

Having worked on some feature films, I’ve had the opportunity to watch 35mm film dailies on many occasions, and it's really stunning how far removed from that camera original the standard Hollywood feature gets. A normal feature gets printed at least 3 times before it gets to your local theater. That's a copy of a copy of a copy, folks!

The point is, that we were watching a very different movie that night. It looked like I was watching dalies on set. Better than that, even. You could see subtle details in the costuming and makeup that were totally hidden on a 35mm print. You could see paint texturing that was faked on the set. You could even tell which greenery were real plants and which ones were fake plastic!

I know that SIL was shot on 35mm film, but the problem I’ve just described would be even worse on HD capture, in my opinion. In that case you’re looking at a perfect digital copy.

It's just like the local news outfits that had to completely upgrade the news sets when they made the switch to HD. Problems that would be hidden on old NTSC were ugly, obvious flaws in HD!

My wife recently had a similar experience when she went to see the Matrix Reloaded at the IMAX. She told me how Keanu Reeves' makeup was horrendous. You could see how they covered his dark stubble with makeup to create a smoother skin texture, and it just looked bad. She said Jada Smith was beautiful, you could tell she was just a knockout in person, but Keanu and Carrie-Ann Moss looked like hell. I noticed none of these things when I saw the Matrix Reloaded on 35mm. Maybe from a storytelling standpoint, there is such a thing as too much resolution.

My point is that when feature films are captured digitally, even at current resolutions, and projected digitally, we'll basically be seeing as close as possible to the camera originals. Any cost savings from an all-digital pipeline is going to be FAR offset by higher production costs in sets, costume, lighting and makeup. The bar is going to be raised so high for production design that the entire industry will be turned on its head.

I guess this all brings me back around to the original post on the thread. That instructor had it right, but he actually had it completely backward, and for all the wrong reasons. 35mm film IS like a dream. It's a hazy representation of reality. The digital future is perhaps more real than we would like it to be. The images are disturbingly lifelike. In the near future it will actually be harder to shoot digital than film. It will take more work to sell the fantasy. I, for one, hope that the bar IS raised. I think the industry as a whole will be better for it.

What you saw in the digital projection, the 'defects' of makeup and foliage, are artifacts of digital conversion and possibly post processing. If the foliage looked plastic it's due to loss of gray scale and maybe an attempt in post to increase the colors. Since digital can't capture the full range of the film, it tends to go "plastic".

So digital isn't too good. It's not half as good. You can get away with more on digital than you can in film because mistakes are more likely to show up on film.

If the theatre you go to has all those problems, I would change theatres or complain to someone. If they can't properly project a film they surely couldn't do it right with digital.

Depending on the chain, certain theatres do not get the best prints. I've heard a lot of complaints about Deluxe which a lot of the studios use.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Belics : What you saw in the digital projection, the 'defects' of makeup and foliage, are artifacts of digital conversion and possibly post processing. If the foliage looked plastic it's due to loss of gray scale and maybe an attempt in post to increase the colors. Since digital can't capture the full range of the film, it tends to go "plastic". -->>>

I'm not at all sure that that's a fair assumption. We really don't know what Scott and his wife saw. I suspect that Scott could spot compression artifacts, given his background.

I think Scott makes a keen point that digital versions of material -can- be less forgiving than some film renderings. Although pixels are larger than film grains, they remain in precisely the same position on the screen unlike film grain.

[EDIT]
I seem to recall someone, perhaps Charles Papert, recently remarking that HD productions must pay more attention to subtle details and defects on sets because of this characteristic.

Just don't get too close to a feature being projected digitally, or you will begin seeing pixels and aliasing. It is recommended to be at least 1 and a half screen heights away from the screen at the minimum.

As far as "dim projection bulbs" go, that really is an unfair comparison. Once DLP gets standardized into all theaters, owners will let them get just as dim and flickery in a digital projection unit as they did in a film lamphouse. In fact, the lamphouses are the same for both film and digital, only for some reason digital seems to need more light (thus more expensive xenon bulbs) to light the same size screen as film. I think a lot of people are impressed by the artificial "sharpness" of digital cinema. It's like taking a large photo of something, then scanning it to say, 800 x 600. Then you run it through Photoshop's sharpening filter. Suddenly people are like "The digital version looks sharper. Digital is better!" They do the same exact thing with digital cinema, and if you look carefully, you can see the ghosting around the edges that result from digital sharpening.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Ken. You're right. I could and have spotted compression artifacts on a variety of content, from DVDs and digital cable to cheaply done CG FX in big Hollywood movies. The issue was that with such a clean transfer, and such a rock-solid presentation, the image is much less forgiving. Even though technically the resolution is nowhere near 35mm film, the combination of factors makes the overall psychological effect is of a cleaner image.

I've been a professional theater projectionist (remember those?) I've been a professional videographer. I've shot films, on both film and video. I'm pretty much as anal about image quality as it gets, and I can tell you that past row 4 or 5, my local Technicolor DLP projector blows film out of the water. I will grant you, I've only seen Shrek, Episode II and Finding Nemo on that particular projector, so it's not really fair, as they're all animated films ;-)

I have, however, seen clips from several other features in darkened rooms all over NAB the last few years. Seeing 10 minutes or so of Amile' was a trancendent experience. That's an example of a film where the production design was so lush and overwhelmingly fantastic that it holds up wonderfully. I only wish I could have seen the whole film like that!

Rob, being in St. Louis, I can't believe you haven't run into the same inconsistancies that we get in my neck of the woods. Let's face it - outside of the Studio Zone in Los Angeles, theatrical presentation is a crap shoot. Something like 85% of theater houses are not up to SMPTE standards. It simply costs too much to replace xenon bulbs. Theater owners just wait for the bulbs to burn out. I'm not saying this will change with digital projectors, but one thing will change.

When a print is threaded through a projector, it needs to be re-framed and re-focused for each show. That's just the nature of the beast. even the best 35mm projector will require this. Now, take a 25-plex with one manager who now starts all the shows. Someone else probably did the build-up with all the trailers and promos. This manager has no time to ride the print through until the movie actually starts. They have to serve double duty selling concessions. So they rush in, start the projector. Maybe they do a rough framing on the first promo. They don't focus at all unless it's way out of whack or someone (usually me) complains. Then they walk away. Now, let's say the assistant manager who built the film from the reels and trailers missed a sprocket on the splice between one trailer or another. Now the film is 10% out of whack vertically, but no one (except me) complains because there is often a soft matte on the picture. That means the full academy frame is still printed on the print, even though you're supposed to see the middle 1:1.85, or more, for a 'scope picture. Now everyone's head is cut off, or the opposite - you start seeing boom mikes creep into the top of frame. That happens less often these days, but still.

Let's say the gate and intermittent on the projector hasn't been cleaned in 2 weeks, because projectors run so smooth these days, and film lubricants are so much better than even 10 or 15 years ago. Great, but all the while, the jitter and weave gets worse, and every print they show gets eaten up. Who cares? The film isn't worth diddly squat after opening weekend anyway, and after that the print just gets shipped off to the dollar theaters.

Okay. Same theater. Same (ahem) projectionist/manager. Digital projector. Files get shipped in on DVD-rom, or satellite. Wherever. Manager builds up previews point and click. Focus only needs to ever be set up once for the projector. Never changes - no moving parts. Maybe it's checked twice a year with a collimation chart. Maybe the projector senses lumen output changes and reacts to a fading bulb. Gives a warning signal when bulb is within 500 hours of failure. Manager never even starts the projector as it's all programmed into the computer. Set your watch by it. Picture is always the same, always framed and focused properly, never weaves or jitters, never a bad print by Deluxe or any other of those dinosaurs. Print also looks as good after 200 shows as it looked opening night. I'll give up the resolution right now, and so would a lot of other people.

Right. More "real" is not at all a function of HD being "too good". It just means that it represents the world in a different way.

I have seen actresses who look fine to the eye and would photograph on film nicely look haggard and/or older on video. The cameras respond to colors and contrasts differently than both film and the eye, and require a different approach. However, I have also seen skilled on-set video techs instantly dial out those kind of problems in a way that would be much more of a crap-shoot if even possible on film.

Last night I watched some camera tests of beautiful underwater footage from the Bahamas shot on both 35mm and HD. I only got to see the 35mm, in an HD telecine bay. It was stunning. Some of the contrast was so extreme that it was pushing the limits of the latitude of the motion picture film. I mentioned that it would likely be virtually blacks and whites on the HD, not much gray scale left in the middle. I'm going to check in today to see if this was the case.

Without a doubt, 4K film-outs or even top digital projection can present a 35mm-originated image in an impressive way (I still see aliasing and artifacting, but it's getting better). Digital origination is well behind in maturity. It seems likely that barring the political and economic issues of converting theatres over to digital projection and revising the distributions system (no easy task), we will see the exhibition end of Hollywood filmmaking go largely digital well before the acquisition end.

First of all, a show on film does not need to be reframed and/or refocused for every single show. If the projectionist is not competant enough to thread the film in frame each and every single time, he/she should not be in the projection booth. Same goes with focus. Unless you have a bad lens, there should be no need to refocus each show. Why would it go out of focus? The best 35mm projectors (Kinoton E series) are electronically controlled, and even the lesser projectors such as Simplex, Century, and Christie are not vunerable to this if maintained properly. Any theater using the manager to run the booth deserves the bad presentation quality they get. They should have a projectionist. I personally lock the framing knobs of the projector so that the projectionist is FORCED to thread in frame. Also, a frame of film has 4 sprocket holes. If it is misspliced by one sprocket, it will be 25% out of frame, not 10%.

I personally ran My Big Fat Greek Wedding for about a thousand shows on a set of Simplex projectors. The print left without a mark on it. It played BETTER than it did when we had it on its first day. No scratches, no dirt, no extra weave or jump. It is not the nature of film to be damaged. It is only incompetant operators and poorly maintained equipment that can damage film during its run... nothing else. A bad presentation is purely the fault of the theater showing it. I imagine the question will be asked: "How can it be better that when it was brand new?". Simple... shipping dust. There is always a bit of dust and dirt on a film from shipping when it is brand new.

Ted, no offense taken. What I don't know about projection is a lot more than what I do know. It was 20 years ago on equipment that was old even then.

What you're describing is exactly how it should be. A competent, union projectionist in a well-maintained booth can present a print flawlessly for a long run. But that's just not reality in many theaters across the country.

When I said that I'd gladly give up resolution, I spoke too soon and too blindly. My sincere hope is that theaters don't just jump all over the first technology that makes financial sense right now, but that the standards that develop will be every bit as compelling as the best film based projection.

As to the Texas Intruments' DLP technology, it will need to improve resolution before it will be really impressive. The fact that it is based on Digital Micromirror Devices inherently leads to the pixels being very distinct and separated. DLP's top resolution of 1280x1024 isn't quite enough to overcome the limitations of the device.

JVC's D-ILA Digital Cinema projectors on the other hand, based on CMOS LCD type devices, seem to be much more organic. The pixels tend to smoothly transition from one to the next. And at resolutions now topping 2048x1536, I don't see any reason why this should not be acceptable to even the most discerning audience.

Thankfully, it seems that the theater conversion to digital will drag on for at least a few more years, and in that intervening time, Moore's law will trudge forward as it does for all things digital, and we'll have double the resolution at half the price by the time theater owners are ready to step on board en masse.

<<<--
Thankfully, it seems that the theater conversion to digital will drag on for at least a few more years, and in that intervening time, Moore's law will trudge forward as it does for all things digital, and we'll have double the resolution at half the price by the time theater owners are ready to step on board en masse. -->>>

The official position from DCI right now seems to be a 2K interim solution with a 4K system as the final (well, for the time being) solution. Now that they've all kind of agreed what the specs for certifiable systems should be I feel like we'll start seeing more of them popping up.

FWIW, I go a a film school where we watch almost all of our movies on crappy LCD projectors that would be better suited to conference room PowerPoint presentations. It's kind of a drag.

Scott, the projectionists don't have to be union to be good, but they should be well compensated and valued. Unfortunately those days are long past... but not everywhere.

As far as digital cinema is concerned, the biggest issue is the question of who is going to pay for it all. A single digital cinema projector costs upward of $120,000. A regular film projector, lamphouse, and platter system costs around 1/4 of that. Not to mention that digital cinema needs bigger (thus more expensive) xenon bulbs. Also, the bigger the bulb, the shorter the warranty and the fewer hours it is able to last. The bulbs will need to be changed out more often, thus the cost of running digital cinema is more than film cinema. Theaters won't bring in much more business switching to digital cinema... certainly not enough to pay for the hardware upgrade. Studios will save a TON of money on print shipping costs, print manufacturing and the like. So really it is only the studios who see any real monetary benefit, but they don't want to buy everyone a digital projector.

Digital cinema WILL happen and be commonplace eventually, but not for a long time. Theater owners are incredibly cheap people. There are very few exceptions, unfortunately.

PS - Digital cinema projectors DO have moving parts... every single pixel is a mirror that swivels 90 degrees to be "on" or "off". Unless the technology is improved, the possibility for dead pixels onscreen at the cinema is pretty good. And just like now, projection maitenence will not be a priority.

I always thought I would enjoy owning a one screen theatre that was first class in every way. Perfect sound, best picture, etc. But in some ways it would be like running a restaurant and I do that now and hate it.

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Anderson : I guess this all brings me back around to the original post on the thread. That instructor had it right, but he actually had it completely backward, and for all the wrong reasons. 35mm film IS like a dream. It's a hazy representation of reality. The digital future is perhaps more real than we would like it to be. The images are disturbingly lifelike. In the near future it will actually be harder to shoot digital than film. It will take more work to sell the fantasy. I, for one, hope that the bar IS raised. I think the industry as a whole will be better for it. -->>>

I kind of think the "video look" will eventually go away. It's not the level of detail that's problematic, as far as I can tell. Portrait photographers with view cameras have to deal with even more resolution than current high-end digital. They use the same kind of filtration and lighting tricks that Hollywood has always used to make people look less beastly and it usually seems to work.

It's the way video reacts to light somehow. I'm not exactly Mr. Wizard when it comes to things like optics or sensor arrays, but there's something about the way video sees light that's not as palatable as film. I kind of expect to eventually see cameras with slots for memory cards that will store operator presets that will dictate things like response curves and maybe even eventually virtual filters. Load up a virtual warm black pro-mist filter, mute the colors a little and start clicking through curves until you're happy with what's on the monitor.

Eh, at the rate things are going we'll probably all have setups like that in our cell phones in another decade. ;-)

Very few, if any, portrait photographers use view cameras. A minority use medium format, but the bulk of the wedding and portrait business has gone digital. Softening the look of portraits is nothing new. People like a flattering portrait and harsh wrinkles, crow's feet and blemishes certainly don't contribute to the self image they have of themselves.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Very few, if any, portrait photographers use view cameras. A minority use medium format, but the bulk of the wedding and portrait business has gone digital. Softening the look of portraits is nothing new. People like a flattering portrait and harsh wrinkles, crow's feet and blemishes certainly don't contribute to the self image they have of themselves. -->>>

Geez, looks like a lot of people over at Photo.net haven't heard that nobody uses view cameras for portraits anymore:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...CM&unified_p=1

;-)

Open up your yellow pages and try and find a photographer that does large format portraiture. In Tampa/St.Pete there are none that advertise the service. In your link one of the respondents posted about using a digital back on a LF camera. Many of the respondents wrote about the use of LF in a bygone era. There were masters of it, but they're pretty much all gone now. Like film will be in a few more years.

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Open up your yellow pages and try and find a photographer that does large format portraiture. In Tampa/St.Pete there are none that advertise the service. In your link one of the respondents posted about using a digital back on a LF camera. Many of the respondents wrote about the use of LF in a bygone era. There were masters of it, but they're pretty much all gone now. Like film will be in a few more years. -->>>

You make a good point. Still photo gear is so far ahead of digital video. I went to an exhibit at Moma last spring of Andreas Gursky's work. I guess he uses large format digital backs (haven't been able to find anything specific about his process). I don't know how he addresses the speed issue, but the work was amazing. The prints were ten or twelve feet tall and the amount of minute detail in them was overwhelming. The photos are so huge that you seem to get sucked into the environment they present.

When digital cinema can do that; when it can present detail that transcends 65mm or IMAX, then we'll have an interesting game. Cinema Verite that really sucks you in and transports you someplace will be possible. The kind and amount of production design work necessary for features, as someone pointed out earlier, will undoubledly change the industry.

BTW, has Bryn Allen in Tampa gone digital now? I remember getting medium format proofs from them as a kid.